Ohio State - USC fallout | naxself's random stuff

So, after the USC Trojan dude shoved the sword into the 50-yard line prior to the game, the USC Trojans went out and did the same to the Ohio State Buckeyes. USC went out and did what they had to do: put on an impressive show in destroying a quality opponent. Two things are clear now: first, Ohio State (and the Big Ten) was overrated this season. I know not having Beanie Wells hurt, but he wouldn't have changed the outcome. Every reasonable person needs to acknowledge that. But, more importantly, we all witnessed the death of high profile, Top 25 September games.

I must give props to Jim Tressel and Pete Carroll for scheduling this game (even three or four years ago or whenever it was schedules, USC and OSU were still good teams). This game was what has become a rare treat: an important September game. Most big schools schedule cupcakes, a fact lamented by a lot of people recently. They do this for 2 reasons: (1) it seems like an easy win; and (2) it pads the win total for prestige, recruiting, and coach resume reasons. So, we need a reason for good teams to play other good teams.

That reason, shockingly, lies with the BCS. Now, I have no love for the BCS, but we're stuck with it. And, since they don't want to have a playoffs we'll have to make due with the very flawed polls. So the solution is to make the regular season a kind of playoff. If a BCS team schedules another BCS team (or a Top 25 team or a potential BCS buster), they should get a reward in the computer-generated BCS standings. Something like this: for scheduling the game and going through with it, each team gets 1 BCS point to be added to their total in the BCS standings for the rest of the season. The winning team gets 1 extra point, for a total of 2. It doesn't have to be 1 point, it could be 1000 or 500 or whatever works best. The point is that there's an incentive for, say, Oklahoma to play Florida. Or USC to take on Georgia. In this way, two wrongs (scheduling cupcakes and the BCS) might make a right.

I'm sure it's unfeasable but I figured I'd throw it out there. Comments? Suggestions?

Comments (1) Add A Comment

September 22, 2008 04:39 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

I don't think it will have an impact on Septembe scheduling. Tressel has and will continue to schedule some perennial top teams though they may not be that good by the time the schedule brings them together (Miami, Oklahoma, Tennessee, California, etc.)

I don't thik it is a huge issue for the BCS. The pollsters are likely to give a nod to at least 1 team outside the major 6. You have the 6 conference champs. That only leaves 3 spots - even in a loss a good showing against a top non-conference team can get you back near the top in the polls by year's end (for good or bad, it is the lossess at the end of the year that kill you).

I do miss when the teams took the 4 non-conference games, scheduled 2 cupcakes to give their alumni an extra home game, and played 2 top teams from the other major 6 conferences.

With the exception of perhaps Oklahoma in the title game when they didn't win their conference, I have no problem with any of the selections made for the title game - it is 1 thing to point to teams that made it and say they shouldn't be there, it is another to put forth a viable option (like in 07, do you put in WVU after losing to Pitt, or USC after losing to Stanford, and can you really make a convincing argument for any 2 loss team to play for the title?)